Digital Identity - what could it mean for consumers?

In our latest blog post Amanda Long, Director General at Consumers International, discusses the topic of digital identity and the potential benefits and threats for consumers.

The idea of people having an easy way to prove their identity online through a digital identity is not new, but has so far been used mainly by governments enabling citizens’ access to public services. Austrian citizens can use an approved app on their smart phone, or a smart card to apply for benefits, do tax returns or access healthcare. 

A digital identity is a means by which individuals can prove their identity online - for example, job applicants needing to prove their residency status, or even qualifications.  It links up to an identity checking system which can verify that the person with that identity is who they say they are – both online and in person. This means people can use their digital identity credentials to access services or products without having to physically present valuable documents, such as passports, birth certificates, driving licenses or a handful of utility bills.

Digital identity could represent a comprehensive solution to many millions of people who are effectively barred from entry to many things that could improve their quality of life. Without traditional forms of documentation, transactions like renting accommodation, setting up a bank account or getting a mobile phone contract become impossible.

It could also solve problems for consumers in more developed markets, wherever identity is a problem. According to a start-up digital identity provider: “Age verification online would prevent underage users from opening inappropriate social media accounts, and ensure that minors cannot access adult content. It would also help online retailed to confirm that someone is eligible to buy age restricted goods like DVDs, computer games, alcohol, cigarettes and knives” (YOTI)

Digital identity could potentially deliver financial inclusion, seen as a strong route out of poverty - or at the very least accelerates us towards it. The World Bank has a programme dedicated to identity and financial inclusion, ID4D – which “helps countries analyse problems, design solutions, and implement new systems to increase the number of people with official identification and the development impact of the overall identification system.”

Of course for some people, the scope that any kind of centralised identity system has for government surveillance and discrimination will be cautious about the implications of digital identity systems. With this large caveat in mind, what is there that we learn from the pioneering steps governments have taken in exploring digital identity that might be useful for budding consumer applications? The UK digital identity verification programme has developed a set of Consumer and Privacy principles to guide practice. 

These types of frameworks will be important as the implications of this technology could be significant. If it is not designed with protection in mind and regulated accordingly:

-          Individuals’ privacy could be at risk, with the potential for personal data for all parts of your digital existence being held by digital ID verification services, as a means to authenticate who you are, with you having little or no control of what’s collected and stored or how it is being used to make decisions about you.  If alternative income streams to monetising consumers’ personal data aren’t identified then the risks to privacy will continue.

-          There is a threat of lack of consumer choice. It is very possible that a critical mass could form of people using a particular digital identity service that means it is effectively forced onto everyone.  This could mean less competition between digital ID verification providers and also a weakening of consumers’ rights to protection. In this scenario, the speed at which a particular service is adopted by a mass of people may mean that the opportunity to check, challenge and reform terms and conditions of the service are reduced. An individual who is swept up with this, who sees it as the only way to continue access to a product, may agree to terms and conditions that if given more time or choice they would not.

-          We might also see a situation where one person would need multiple digital identities, in order to access a variety of services as companies may not recognise the same identity providers.

-          The liability model for digital identity is also complex. For example, should digital identity providers be responsible for actions done based on the authentication they give?

With so much potential for consumer benefit and significant threats at play, consumer organisations must build up their expertise on this issue so they can influence the private sector as it develops digital identity systems. Consumer organisations are in a strong position to draw upon existing public sector practice, and the need for trust, confidence and consumer protection in digital systems to influence this nascent industry for the better.

How can consumers make meaningful choices in the digital world?

This week, Amanda Long, Director General of Consumers International spoke at EDPS-BEUC conference on Big Data: Individual Rights and Smart Enforcement [1]in Brussels which brought together issues of competition, consumer protection and data protection.  You can read Amanda’s full speech here. Below is an extract.

Questions of size, power, competition and choice have never been so important to our understanding of consumer protection and empowerment in the digital world.  The reach of so many big internet companies is remarkable: one in two global internet users visit Amazon on a monthly basis[2].  Google has a 71% share of the search market globally, rising to 90% in the European Union[3]. WhatsApp is the top messaging app in 109 countries, or 56% of the world.[4]

Consumers are feeling the direct impact that such large players have on their individual choices: from privacy tools disappearing from app stores[5], or WhatsApp users seeing the service bought out by Facebook, followed by changes to the terms of data sharing [6],  to the impenetrable terms and conditions which people must agree to in order to access digital services[7].  These digital services that quickly link up friends, music, events and travel are convenient and can be great fun but can also feel a bit like a lobster pot - easy to get into but very tricky to get out of.

Many multinational platforms and digital companies have become indispensable to contemporary life, offering high quality, convenient digital interactions. The data monetisation model behind some, where people ‘exchange’ information about themselves for the service with no upfront financial cost, makes for a tantalising offer.   They are the default by which consumers experience and interact with digital - the gateway to the internet if you like: we don’t search, we Google, we don’t make videocalls, we Skype.

The dominance of a small number of firms is significant because people’s choice over whether to engage or not in the digital world is becoming increasingly limited.[8]  If a few large companies effectively become gateways to all the internet has to offer, then we have to ask questions about how their size and dominance impact consumer choice, power and protection?

In the European Union, the prospects of keeping markets competitive and consumers protected are closely tied. It is suggested that competition itself can offer a protection of sorts by creating markets where companies compete for customers on the basis of value, quality and strong consumer credentials. In reality, without a range of options, and without an easy way to move between these options, it is difficult for consumers to sever ties if they are unsatisfied with a particular service. As a result, it becomes very hard to gauge whether people are happy or unhappy with services and the way companies operate. Classic ideas of competition and consumer protection are therefore stretched. 

Looking ahead to the next phase of digital consumption; the internet of things, heavy reliance on a small number of large companies could become even more important.  As well as raising privacy and security issues, the internet of things marks a major change in how we think about consumption, purchase and ownership. This is mostly because of so-called ‘hybrid’ products [9]– where physical products are owned by the customer, yet the presence of software means the device is subject to contract terms and conditions, which could put unexpected limitations on its use or make exiting a contract difficult.

Large established players already marking out territory in the internet of things will have to gather and connect data to as many objects and people as possible to make their connected services thrive. The more data points connected, the more potentially valuable the insights, so drawing in and retaining as many customers as possible will be top of companies’ agenda.  Exercising choice could get harder for consumers, as they lean towards contracting with one company as an easy way of bringing together multiple services. In practice, switching provider by exiting contracts will be time consuming or inconvenient.  Add to this the difficulties in transferring data between suppliers and lock in seems more and more inevitable.

These limitations on choosing between providers are really important for the digital age.  If competition can no longer effectively deliver consumer protection through providing choice, then we need to approach things differently.   In fact there is the real opportunity to forge a positive consumer agenda for the digital age that addresses areas of consumer concern and offers real choice over how to participate.  A complex, integral and dominating set of relationships should not put us off arguing for a fairer and more accountable digital system for consumers.
For example:
-          Data portability and system interoperability – to enable easy transfer between different services, keep different options open, and keep the value of data close to consumer control
-          Smarter use of information, and more transparency on how decisions based on data are made, not just what data is collected.  
-          Innovations that aid consumer understanding and build consumer trust and confidence such as personal data intermediaries. 

The genie is out of the bottle.  Widespread digital technology is here.  There is real potential for consumers to benefit but also a flip side presenting widespread negative consumer outcomes.  It is up to us to work together to ensure that the practices and delivery of large digital companies stand up to the scrutiny and expectations of the people whose lives are so entwined with them.

---

[1] http://www.beuc.eu/press-media/news-events/joint-conference-big-data-september-29 

[2] https://www.globalwebindex.net/blog/topic/trends-2016

[3] https://www.statista.com/markets/424/topic/541/search-engines-seo/

[4] https://www.statista.com/statistics/258749/most-popular-global-mobile-messenger-apps/

[5] http://www.computerworld.com/article/2929835/it-industry/disconnect-files-eu-antitrust-complaint-against-google-after-app-ban.html

[6] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37184651

[7] http://www.forbrukerradet.no/side/250000-words-of-app-terms-and-conditions/

[8] https://openmedia.org/en/internet-access-ruled-essential-daily-life

[9] http://www.consumersinternational.org/media/1657273/connection-and-protection-the-internet-of-things-and-challenges-for-consumer-protection.pdf

TPP protest songs: CI takes a pop at secretive trade agreement

Jeremy Malcolm blogs on two new music videos launched today which challenge the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and aim to raise awareness of  this consumer rights issue.

 

As negotiators for the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement meet in Bali this week, consumers remain in the dark about how it will affect them. 

Two new music videos that we release today send a strong message to the negotiators – either open up the agreement, or we need to stop the TPP!

The secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement could overturn rules on topics as diverse as intellectual property, food labelling and financial services regulation in twelve countries of the Pacific Rim. 

From today senior officials from those countries are meeting at the APEC meeting in Bali, where they hope to advance the negotiations towards closure this year.

Consumers deserve to be a part of these negotiations.  So until we find out what the officials are planning to agree on our behalf, we need to stop the TPP! 

That is the simple message that Consumers International sends out today with the release of two new shareable music videos to raise public awareness of this impending threat to consumer rights.

The videos could not be more different from each other, either musically or visually, but both brilliantly convey our concerns about this undemocratic treaty under negotiation.

The first is 'No to the TPP' (No Al TPP), a beautiful and stirring bossanova-style song in Spanish by the Grammy Award nominated Chilean musician Ana Tijoux, with an evocative music video directed by Fourd Alzamora.

The second music video is an irresistibly catchy J-pop number called 'Stop the TPP!' (みんなでストップ！TPP) by Japanese musicians Emi Nakada and Citron178.  They released the audio of their original Japanese version earlier in the year, but today CI launches an accompanying animation video as well as an English language vocal version.  We even have a karoke version to which you can sing along!

Emi explains why she made the song: “The subject matter of the TPP is so complicated that people can't easily understand how it affects them.  To alert the people as soon as possible to the risks surrounding the TPP, I wrote lyrics that explain the TPP to everyone in simple terms, while singing happily!  I want you to please use this song as one quick way to simply convey this message to a lot of people!”

Emi collaborated on the track with Citron178 who is a composer of anime (Japanese animation) songs.  This is particularly apt given that the anime fan subculture is one of those threatened by the TPP's rules on intellectual property, which would interfere with the creation of homages such as fan art and “cosplay” (fancy dress) designs.

She writes: “In Japan, not much is known about the effects of the intellectual property chapter of the TPP, but it is likely to regulate the creation of fan fiction.  So in order to send a message to geeks, who like to make secondary creative works like this, I had to make a song in the style of anime songs.”  But the threat of the TPP goes further.  “Once you join the TPP, genetically modified foods come in, food safety is lost, health and life are threatened... The risk of losing everything you need for living is high.  It is no doubt that it is a primary concern for consumers!”

Please share both of these brilliant music videos as widely as you can, to send a strong message that we need to Stop the TPP!  In the words of Ana's song 'No to the TPP':

A treaty is not democratic if it is made behind the people
And your deal is not a deal if it is made secretly and without consensus
We all have the right and we all want to decide
The future and present of our children and how they want to live
No to the TPP

Who’s policing the Internet?

As governments try to impose their rule on the Internet, digital rights activist strive to keep Internet governance open, inclusive and controlled by the many. In a four-part series, CI’s Digital Rights Senior Policy Officer Jeremy Malcolm looks at the issues.

In the wake of last year's defeat of the controversial ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) treaty in Europe and of the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act) bills in the United States, both of which called on intermediaries to police consumers' use of the Internet, digital rights activists in the West have naturally gained a heightened sensitivity to their governments intruding on Internet freedoms.

One indication of this was how aggressively they opposed all Internet-related proposals at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) last December.

The fear was that although many of those proposals seemed modest, they were the vanguard of a movement from governments to more broadly address Internet governance issues such as online freedom of expression, security and privacy through purely intergovernmental processes, rather than through existing, more open and inclusive, multi-stakeholder mechanisms.

There are three assumptions that seem to underlie this fear:

1. Governments should not be involved in Internet governance.
2. If governments are involved in Internet governance, it should only be at the national level, not at the global level.
3.  If governments are involved in Internet governance at the global level, there are existing, bottom-up multi-stakeholder mechanisms through which they can address all their concerns, instead of resorting to the ITU.

However, all three assumptions are wrong. To fail to comprehend this is to misunderstand the forces that drive many governments towards the use of intergovernmental mechanisms to set policies for the Internet, and to overlook the opportunity that we have right now to channel these forces in a way that is more responsive to the concerns of ordinary Internet users.

In fact, if all three assumptions are disproved, it follows that finding a more acceptable way for governments to participate in global Internet governance is imperative. So let's examine those assumptions in turn.

The need for governments at the national level

The first assumption, that governments don't have a legitimate role in governance of the Internet, seems so far-fetched that I might be accused of raising a straw-man argument – yet it is a serious school of thought called cyber-libertarianism, and flows almost as an axiom from the framing of advocacy for online rights and freedoms (particularly by activists from the United States) as the “Internet freedom” movement.

Moreover, this cyber-libertarian framing is not reserved to those who are otherwise politically libertarian.

Even politically progressive activists are inclined to be more distrustful of governmental intervention online than offline, in an expression of Internet ‘exceptionalism’, which holds that the Internet is different and deserving of a more hands-off regulatory approach.

To accept the cyber-libertarian proposition is to deny any role for government intervention at the national level, in areas that many of us actively support, such as:

• Passing network neutrality rules that would prevent network operators from discriminating against particular types of Internet content or services.
• Providing incentives for the migration to the next generation version of the Internet protocol, IPv6 – a task at which the forces of markets and norms have so far manifestly failed.
• Setting enforceable standards for the protection of consumers’ personal data that go further than the weak voluntary codes of practice adopted by segments of industry.
• Extending universal service policies so that consumers in rural areas are guaranteed a basic level of Internet service, enabling them to participate in the information society on an equal footing with their city-dwelling peers

In 1993 or even 2003 we might have given the market the benefit of the doubt and held off from regulating in these areas.

But in 2013, it seems increasingly implausible that the legitimate interests of all consumers in having affordable access to the open Internet, whilst maintaining their own privacy, can be secured without targeted government intervention of some sort or other.

Part 2 in this blog series, describing the need for governments at the global level, will be available next week.